"Loretta" scene being censored from Life of Brian stage remake

[zibzibara]

John Cleese is forced to cut famous Life of Brian scene about men having babies from his new West End show

Cleese told an audience at his one-man show last week that when the scene (co-written with the late Graham Chapman) was performed at a read-through for the new show in New York last year, doubts emerged. 'At the end, I said to the American actors: 'What do you think?' And they said: 'We love the script, but you can't do that stuff about Loretta nowadays.'

'So here you have something there's never been a complaint about in 40 years, that I've heard of, and now all of a sudden we can't do it because it'll offend people. What is one supposed to make of that? But I think there were a lot of things that were actually, in some strange way, predictive of what was actually going to happen later.'

And of course what will happen is that everyone will start googling that scene. And it will be viewed more times online than it will ever be viewed in the theatre.

With the added layer of outrage over the censorship.

Articles will be written about it!

More foot shooting from transactivists. They never learn

Perfect!

Jeez, a scene from a 40 year old movie which made it big back then BECAUSE of all the protests. The world has gone mad. This wasn't shown in ireland because of the Catholic Church kicking off back then.

And looking at that scene it just shows how far ahead of their time monty python were with their comedy.

I suppose I always thought it was an in-joke of sorts, a reference to the then-decade old Beatles lyrics to 'get back'?, which in fairness go to considerable lengths not to misgender Mx Martin, dropping in no fewer than six female pronouns over the space of four lines.

Sweet Loretta Martin thought she was a woman
But she was another man
All the girls around her say she's got it coming
But she gets it while she can

You couldn't get a more relevant piece of comedy.

Stan : I want to be a woman.
Why?
Stan : It is my right as a man.
Why do you want to be Loretta, Stan.
Stan: I want to have babies. It is every man's right to have babies if he wants em.

These lines presciently emphasised how much male entitlement is involved in the trans movement and we cannot have that can we?

I think that pointing out that Stan's delusions are incompatible with reality is the objection.

These days it seems to be yellow or green.

Freedom of speech is being flushed.

Has The Lumberjack Song been banned yet?

I wonder if Brian's mum will still be played by a man in a dress?

To a pp, apparently Brian doesn't get crucified either, sigh.

I do wonder what they are going to do with the stoning scene, where all the women pretend to be men, so they can join in.

I did find it interesting that it was only tested out in America. I wonder whether the outcome would have been the same here, with our much more ingrained love of the original?

George Harrison was always the coolest of the Beatles. I'd never noticed him in the film though?

the thing is, that this scene is very very supportive of Loretta, notwithstanding Cleese's character basically "pshawing" at it.

Loretta announces they want to be loretta and a woman. Then expresses an impossible wish. And instead of saying "don't be a twat Loretta, men can' thave babies" they agree that it is unfair that Loretta (as a trans woman) can't have babies but that they support Loretta's wish to have babies if she could.

It is EXACTLY the affirmation, IMO, that trans people should be getting.

There's a photo of George in his cameo role at the top of this piece from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/apr/03/george-harrison-beatle-monty-python-life-of-brian-handmade-studios

Harrison's major contribution to the film was financing it by remortgaging his house:

In 1978, just as Monty Python’s Life of Brian was about to go into production, the chairman of EMI, Lord Delfont, got around to reading the screenplay his company had bought. He didn’t like it. He was so appalled, in fact, that he washed his hands of the whole outrageous venture, and the Pythons had to raise £2m in a hurry.

Eric Idle had the idea of phoning George Harrison, the richest person he knew; Harrison in turn consulted his American business manager, Denis O’Brien, who suggested that they fund the film themselves. The only snag was that they would have to remortgage Harrison’s mansion in Henley-on-Thames as well as O’Brien’s London offices. The ex-Beatle would go on to call it “the most expensive cinema ticket ever issued”. But, he reasoned, how else could he see the new Monty Python comedy?

wasn't George Harrison behind Handmade Films? They did a few good ones. And of course he was also in The Rutles (hands down one of the best films ever made)

Love George Harrison 💙 ❤️ ♥️ 💕 💖 💓 😍

I'm not so sure, the little I've read about his relationship with Patti Boyd in various Beatles biogs suggested to me a misogynist even by the standards of the day.

The thing is, it reads now as a direct puncturing into modern trans ideology delusion. When that wasn't the original intention. Because that craziness didn't exist then.

I can kind of see why Cleese would take it out whilst still potentially being GC.

Although I'd wish he'd pick the fight and have it stay in. Humour is a great weapon and is sorely missing from this topic and bits like this absolutely shine a light on the absurdities of this issue.

I love how the Palin character loses the thread of his thoughts because of the mental load of having to switch from 'he' to 'she' and from 'man' to 'woman' - perfectly shows why pronouns are not a neutral or kind request.

the genius of the scene, of course, is the constant inserting of "or woman" because they clearly either think of Judith as "one of the boys" (my charitable take on it) or they completely discount anything she has to say (probably more likely). So on the face of it, it seems that he is trying to remind everyone that Judith is there and an equal member of the... er, which one People's Front Of Judea? or are they the splitters?

anyway. So that's the set up - and of course the payoff is "i want to have babies". It is hilarious. Except, now, of course, it MUST be about the trans narrative, and not the marginalisation of women even in organisations that are supposed to promote class equality. It is about not excluding women as a class. The TRAs won't like that at all. Because it simply MUST be about them dinging on a trans woman.

I'm so over it all.

thinking about it, maybe we could have Judith pointing out that it should be gender neutral (so when he says man she interjects with something like "person" - to be inclusive) and then instead of Loretta wanting to have babies, Judith wants to be non-binary? urgh. doesn't work at all and the blue-haired brigade will still think it's insulting them. (but could lead to much hilarity with "they - yes the Popular People's Front of Judea? no Judith")

Have a look at the Jonathan Creek episode The Clue Of The Savant's Thumb.

Early in the episode Joanna Lumley’s character comments to Jonathan Creek that he is clearly a man who, in a world of "gods and spirits and magic and miracles can still fly the flag for common sense".

The episode makes it quite clear that not everybody believes or supports the belief that TWAW, and that it is actually socially mandated rather than factual reality.

After trans character has been established that character is treated as just an ordinary person. Their transness is as irrelevant in the situation as any other belief or practice.

@WarningToTheCurious 'Has The Lumberjack Song been banned yet?'

I thought it was surrealism when I was a kid, but they were spot on about Canada, as it turns out.

IIRC Cleese is a member of the SDP and knows the TWAM in real life, just as his character does in the Loretta scene.

But he.does need the money.